LOST MODEL: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

Kondrat'ev Eduard Viktorovich, Associate professor, sub-department of management, Penza State University of Architecture and Construction (28 Titova street, Penza, Russia), edwabc@yandex.ru
Chemezov Igor' Stanislavovich, Senior lecturer, sub-department of management, Penza State University of Architecture and Construction (28 Titova street, Penza, Russia), chemezoff@list.ru

334.7 : 005.2

Background. In article the model of dynamic development of the enterprise, developed by B. Livekhud in the Netherlands in 1954–1969 and supplemented by F. Glazl in 1993 is considered. Comparing it to the most known models of organizational changes by I. Adizes and L. Greyner, authors show advantages of this model in management of enterprise development.
Materials and methods. The question of compliance of stages in different models of development of the enterprise is raised and solved. As key to the analysis of the specified models detection of distinctions in concepts "enterprise development" and "life cycle of the enterprise (organization)" acts.
Results. Results of the analysis of the studied models are generalized by a number of indicators: type of model (theory); completeness, completeness of model; main idea; variables (the factors influencing development); areas of changes; elements of practical applicability; advantages of model (theory); shortcomings of model (theory). The analysis shows that in Livekhud-Glazl theory some main shortcomings of the theory by Adizes and the main models of life cycle of the organization have been overcome. The analysis of distinction of concepts "enterprise development" and "life cycle of the enterprise (organization)" opens possibilities of comparison of the models relating to different concepts.
Conclusions. The comparative analysis of the main models of development and life cycle of the enterprises shows that the full, system and practical is the model of dynamic development of the enterprise by B. Livekhud and F. Glazl. The use of this model at diagnostics, management in a phase and phase transition is today the most justified.

enterprise development, life cycle of enterprise (organization), organizational change.

1. Shirokova G. V. Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian journal of management]. 2007,no.3, pp.85–90.
2. Kushelevich E. I., Filonovich S. R. Menedzhment: vek XX – vek XXI [Management: XX century – XXI century]. Moscow: Ekonomist", 2004, pp. 304–320.
3. Morgunov E. B. Organizatsionnoe povedenie: ucheb. posobie [Organizational behaviour: tutorial]. Moscow: Izd-vo MGUPI, 2006.
4. Glazl F., Livekhud B. Dinamichnoe razvitie predpriyatiya: Kak predpriyatiya-pionery i byurokratiya mogut stat' effektivnymi [Dynamic development of entrepreneurship: How pioneer-entreprises and the bureaucracy can become effective]. Kaluga: Dukhovnoe poznanie, 2000, 197 p.
5. Lippitt G. L., Schmidt W. A. Harvard Business Review. 1967, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 102–112.
6. Greiner L. E. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya «Menedzhment» [Bulletin of Saint-Petersburg University. Series “Management”]. 2002, no. 4, pp. 76–94; 1972, no. 50 (4), pp. 37–46.
7. Kats D., Kann R. Organizatsionnaya struktura [Organizational structure]. Moscow, 1978.
8. Adizes I. Teoriya zhiznennykh tsiklov organizatsii [Theory of life cycles of organizations]. Moscow, 1979, 1999.
9. Kuinn R., Kameron K. Integrativnaya model' [Integrative model]. Moscow, 1983.
10. Sheyn E. Kh. Model' razvitiya korporativnoy kul'tury [Model of corporative culture development]. Saint Petersburg : Piter, 1985, 336 p.
11. Nikolaev I. G. Problemy sovremennoy ekonomiki [Problems of modern economy]. 2006, no. 1/2.
12. Pavlutskiy A., Pavlutskaya E., Alekhina O. Upravlenie personalom [Human resource management]. 2001, no. 2, pp. 66–69.
13. Shcherbina V. V. et al. Upravlenie chelovecheskimi resursami: menedzhment i konsul'tirovanie [Human resource management: management and construction]. Moscow: Nezavisimyy institut grazhdanskogo obshchestva, 2004, 520 p.
14. Shirokova G. V. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya «Menedzhment» [Bulletin of Saint-Petersburg University. Series “Management”]. 2005, no. 2, pp. 42–56.
15. Shirokova G. V. Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian journal of management].2007,no.4,pp.3–20.
16. Shirokova G. V., Merkur'eva I. S., Serova O. Yu. Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian journal of management]. 2006, no. 3, pp. 3–26.
17. Lievegoed B. Organisaties in ontwikkeling [Organizations in developing]. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat, 1969.
18. Glasl F., Lievegoed B. Dynamische Unternehmensentwicklung: Wie Pionerbetriebe und Bürokratien zu Schlanken Unternehmen warden [Dybamic business development: How pioneer-entreprises and the bureaucracy can become effective]. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben Stuttgart, 1993.
19. Shchedrovitskiy G. P. Izbrannye trudy [Selected works]. Moscow: Shk. kul't. Polit, 1995, 477 p.
20. Alekseev P. V., Panin A. V. Filosofiya:ucheb.[Philosophy: textbook].Moscow:TK Velbi;Prospekt,2003,608 p.
21. Sviderskiy V. I. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of philosophy]. 1985, pp. 27–28.
22. Filonovich S. R. Rossiyskaya assotsiatsiya biznes-obrazovaniya [Russian Association of Business-education]. 2009. Available at: http:/www.rabe.ru/downloads/ file/ Filonovich.ppt (accessed 17 January 2010).
23. Shirokova G. V. Upravlenie izmeneniyami v rossiyskikh kompaniyakh: ucheb. [Measurement management in Russian companies: textbook]. Saint Petersburg: Vysshaya shkola menedzhmenta, 2009, 480 p.